Allowed

Sri Chakra Construction, Rep.by its Proprietor, N.Bharath Kumar, v. M/s. Na Divine Habitat Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.a.H.Ahamed Shakir

Madras HC9 Nov 2022Arb O.P(COM.DIV.)/500/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition to appoint a substitute arbitrator after the former arbitrator recused himself. The court deleted the second respondent from the proceedings, holding they were not a party to the underlying contract or arbitration.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed by appointing Mr. Justice V.Bharathidasan as Presiding Arbitrator; Second respondent deleted from the array of parties.

Sri Chakra Construction, Rep.by its Proprietor, N.Bharath Kumar… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Sri Chakra Construction, Rep. by its Proprietor, N.Bharath Kumar, New No.3, Old No.16, Chandrappa Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

M/s.NA DIVINE HABITAT PVT. LTD., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.A.H.Ahamed Shakir, Chennai Citi Centre 4^th Floor, 10 & 11 Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai -600 004. ... Respondent (2^nd respondent deleted from the array of parties by separate order dated 09.11.2022)

¶10

PRAYER : Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6)(a) r/w Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pleased to

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶13

appoint a substitute Presiding Arbitrator to resolve the dispute as per the contract agreement dated 27.06.2011.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saikumaran

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.Prahabad Bhatt

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner seeks the substitution of the presiding arbitrator in relation to a dispute which was referred earlier to an arbitral tribunal. It is stated that a Contract Agreement dated 27.06.2011 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent herein. By pointing out that learned presiding arbitrator recused by communication dated 22.01.2021, the present petition is filed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the first respondent has no objection to the substitution of the presiding arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents.

¶19

On examining the petition, the petitioner has made allegations

¶20

against the former presiding arbitrator without joining the said arbitrator as

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶23

a party. The conduct of the petitioner, in such regard, is to be deprecated. If any allegations are being made against an arbitrator, the said person should

¶24

be joined as a party and provided an opportunity to meet those allegations.

¶25

Subject to the above observations, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.)No.500 of 2022 is allowed by appointing Mr. Justice V.Bharathidasan, retired Judge of this Court, No.22,(L-45), 2^nd Main Road, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041, (Mobile No.94443 83139), as the Presiding Arbitrator. The Presiding Arbitrator is requested to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute from the stage at which it was when the former Presiding Arbitrator recused. The fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal, including that of the Presiding Arbitrator, shall be fixed in consultation with the parties.

¶26

09.11.2022

¶27

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rrg

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶30

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶31

rrg

¶32

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶33

09.11.2022

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶36

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶37

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.

¶38

Learned counsel for the first respondent raised an objection to the

¶39

second respondent being joined as a party to this petition for substitution of the presiding arbitrator. He submits that the second respondent is not a party to the Contract Agreement dated 27.06.2011. He further submits that the second respondent is not a party to the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, he submit that the second respondent should be deleted from the array of parties.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner counters this submission by stating that the second respondent is a developer and that the second respondent played a role in the transaction forming the subject of the arbitral proceedings and is required to be made a party thereto.

¶41

On perusal of the contract agreement dated 27.06.2011, it is evident that it is between the petitioner and the first respondent. Therefore,

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶44

the second respondent cannot be joined as a party to this petition or to the

¶45

arbitral proceedings.

¶46

The Registry is directed to delete the second respondent from the

¶47

array of parties. The deletion of the second respondent shall be reflected in the separate order disposing of the petition.

¶48

09.11.2022

¶49

rrg

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

SENTHILKUMAR

RAMAMOORTHY,J

rrg

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶56

09.11.2022

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.500 of 2022

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sri Chakra Construction, Rep.by its Proprietor, N.Bharath Kumar, v. M/s. Na Divine Habitat Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.a.H.Ahamed Shakir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chakra Construction, Rep.by its Proprietor, N.Bharath Kumar, v. M/s. Na Divine Habitat Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.a.H.Ahamed Shakir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Power and Instrumentation (Guj) Ltd. Vs Chennai port Trust

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rep.by Its Senior Manger Mr.Mahew Arun, Vs M/s Vadim Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director, Mr.Rajamanickam Rathinam

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rep.by Its Senior Manger Mr.Mahew Arun, Vs M/s Vadim Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director Mr.Rajamanickam Rathinam

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rep.by its Senior Manager, Mr.Mathew Arun, Vs Avdhoot Enterprise, Rep.by its Proprietor Harish Parikh

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rep.by Its Senior Manager, Mr.Mathew Arun, Vs Ravindra R

Neelam Jute (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.Vijay Kant Vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Tncsc)